============================= CFJ 3465 =============================
If Proposal 7821 were resolved right now, the outcome would be
ADOPTED.
======================================================================
Caller: Alexis
Judge: nichdel
Barred: Aris
Judgement: TRUE
======================================================================
History:
Called by Alexis: 6 Nov 2016
Assigned to nichdel: 19 May 2017
Judged TRUE by nichdel: 19 May 2017
======================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
Rule 683, as amended by Proposal 7814, gives the requirements for a
valid ballot:
An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a
notice satisfying the following conditions:
(a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the
decision.
(b) The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the
initiation of the decision, a player.
(c) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.
(d) The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
the voting method.
(d) The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place the
identified vote.
(e) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the
voting period. ("Changing" a vote is equivalent to
retracting it and casting a vote with the new value.)
(f) It is the most recent of the voter's otherwise-valid
ballots.
Note the first sentence "An entity submits a ballot... by *publishing a
notice satisfying the following conditions*". By rule 478, a player
"publishes" something by sending a public message, which this is. While
"notice" is not defined by the rules, it is clear from context, from
Rule 107's use of the same term, and from the ordinary language
definition of the word that a "notice" is a form of document. In
particular, this means that the evaluation as to whether a ballot is
properly submitted is performed by determining whether the
document---the notice---satisfies the conditions listed at the time of
its publication. Moreover, there is nothing in this or any other rule
which provides for the automatic revocation, withdrawal, or otherwise
invalidation of a validly submitted ballot.
Thus, we can evaluate each of the conditions on each of the 100 notices
given above indicating that vote FOR Proposal 7821.
(a) The ballots are submitted in this message, which I am sending
moments prior to the end of the voting period.
(b) It is without a doubt that I was a player when the decision was
initiated.
(c) The ballots each clearly identify Proposal 7821's adoption as the
matter to be decided.
(d) The ballots each clearly identify FOR, a valid vote.
(d) The ballots clearly set forth that I intend to place that vote.
(e) I have not publicly retracted any of the ballots.
(f) At the time of the submission of each ballot, it was the most
recent of my valid votes. While each (except for the last) was
almost immediately supplanted by its successor in the position of
the most recent of my ballots, and it has long been possible to
take multiple actions sequentially in the same message.
Thus, each of those is a valid ballot. Now, in order to determine the
outcome on the decision, we must follow the procedure in Rule 955, as
amended by Proposal 7816:
Each Agoran decision has a voting method, which determines how
voters may vote on it and how to calculate the outcome. The
strength of a ballot is the voting strength of the voter who
cast it on that Agoran decision.
The following voting methods are defined:
(1) AI-majority: the valid votes are FOR and AGAINST. Let F be
the total strength of all valid ballots cast FOR a decision,
A be the same for AGAINST, and AI be the adoption index of
the decision. The outcome is ADOPTED if F/A >= AI and F/A >
1 (or F>0 and A=0), otherwise REJECTED.
Since 100 ballots were cast by myself, and I have voting strength of 1,
the total length of FOR is at least 100, while the small number of
ballots cast AGAINST it certainly do not have total strength greater
than 33 1/3. Consequently, the outcome of the decision must be ADOPTED.
======================================================================
Because I agree with the arguments included by Alexis [Caller's
Arguments] and because the proposal was in fact adopted shortly after
the CFJ was called, I find CFJ 3465 TRUE.
======================================================================